French atomic plant protest attracts thousands

CHERBOURG, France (Reuters) - Several thousand people protested in France's northern port of Cherbourg on Saturday against plans for a new atomic power station and to mark the 1986 explosion at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant. <snip>

EDF says the plant is needed to test a technology that could be used to replace, from 2020, France's existing 58 reactors, which produce 80 percent of the country's power. <snip>

Organisers said 30,000 protestors from across Europe took part. Police put the number at about 12,500.

The protestors said the money needed for the EPR could be better spent on developing renewable technologies and energy saving initiatives. <snip>

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-04-15T181108Z_01_L15639628_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ENERGY-FRANCE.xml&archived=False

...about thier support for coal:

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

"How can we phase out nuclear power ?

Nuclear generation is not the only way to produce electricity.
Firstly, a sustainable transition period should rely on clean coal-fired or gas-powered plants, industrial cogeneration, fuel cells…"

Pass the water-wings. Jose Bove should stick to trashing McDonalds, it's less destructive.

doesn't sound like an endorsement of coal ...

All anti-nuclear activists secretly endorse coal.

They are at least honest, these French Luddites, who will be swept away by history. READ the damn article that Parrot has provided.

Again in case you didn't get it, coal boy, it says:



"Clean coal" doesn't exist. It never will exist. IT IS A LIE. Nor, so long as the greenhouse effect is real, do "Clean Natural Gas" plants exist. THAT IS ALSO A LIE.

As for the appeal to hydro, the size of this resource is known. Maybe you and your radical friends don't get it coal boy, but there aren't many free rivers left, and even the chained rivers depend on dying glaciers.

Energy does NOT come from prayer or from sulky puerile people shouting lots of "NOs!" You need to have at LEAST one YES, on a 440 exajoule scale, coal boy.

Your "NO to...blah...blah" is petulant school boy chanting.

.. (as clearly laid out in the link to which you refer) is that energy should come from sustainable, renewable sources.

What is the fairy tale explanation for why after 50 years of shouting "No to...blah, blah, blah," such sources fail to produce even 10 of the world's 440 exajoules?

Basically these people are spoiled brats. France will reject them, just as the rest of the world is rejecting them, on the grounds they are spoiled children who think shouting slogans is the same as producing energy. It is NOT.

To replace nuclear with coal and gas, then work on renewables.

It's the most environmentally retarded position I think I've ever come across. Perhaps you'd like to read the thread on 550 PPM and share your thoughts on replacing nukes with coal. Oh, I forgot, you don't 'do' the crises in the world's environment. Drought, famine and the death of millions is OK so long as you don't have any responsibility for own waste.

actually what those people say they want.

My view of the real and serious crises in the world environment is actually closely related to another statement on that website: "Our future depends on choosing more energy-friendly and socially benign lifestyles which do not waste resources that belong to our future generations." Americans still consume a quarter of the world's resources, and as far as I can tell much of it is ending up in our landfills: this fact also underlies our traditionally vicious foreign policy ...

There will be no simple solution to the problem, because the entire political-economic system is devoted to behaviors that reinforce the problem.

that you're trying to spin this bullshit with ellipses. You're going to edit what they say and then tell me that's what they wanted to say? What, did their finger slip while typing, accidentally inserting the words "period should rely on clean coal-fired or gas-powered plants, industrial cogeneration, fuel cells..."?

That's a fucking big typo. Oh wait, maybe it's a translation error: Lets look at the original French to check.

"- Si les centrales nucléaires devaient être fermées demain, la France ne se retrouverait pas plongée dans l’obscurité pour autant. La soixantaine de centrales au fioul ou au charbon qui existent en France peut pourvoir en grande partie à notre consommation, pour peu qu’elles fonctionnent toute l’année. à l’heure actuelle, elles ne sont mises en marche que quelques jours pas an, pour compenser les augmentations de consommation dues principalement au chauffage électrique. Pour les centrales au charbon, une modernisation selon la technique du Lit fluidisé circulant (telle qu’elle a été pratiqué en Allemagne) permettrait de limiter considérablement les pollutions comme le soufre. Ce type de centrales présente l’inconvénient de produire beaucoup de CO2, ce qui en fait une solution transitoire.

Les prochains chantiers devraient s’orienter vers des centrales au gaz à cycle combiné. Utilisée dans de nombreux pays, cette technologie est peu polluante et très performante. Elle produit trois fois moins de C02 que les centrales au charbon et permet des rendements de l'ordre de 65 %, le double de celui des centrales traditionnelles."

That's nonsense, especially if you do understand it. "Pour les centrales au charbon, une modernisation...permettrait de limiter considérablement les pollutions" is the sort of tripe I'd expect Bush to come up with (or might, if he didn't have the cultural and linguistic flexibility of a Chicken McNugget).

Yes, we will need to drastically our impact, but no, switching to coal power is not part of the way to do it. And yes, that is exactly what they are saying, even in French.

.. utiliser les autres moyens disponibles, en favorisant les plus efficaces et les moins polluants."

moins polluants about billions of tons of extra CO2? Are you on some distant planet with massive glaciers and blooming coral? 'Cos down here on Earth, Monsieur Charbon, we're suffocating.

what is transitoire about billions of tons of extra CO2, given that it will take at least 30 million years for the CO2 levels to return to normal. For a guy who complains about radioactive waste lasting thousands of years, you're very short-sighted.

.. of global CO2 emissions, and about a quarter of that comes from our tailpipes. That means the average American emits more CO2 just by driving than the average earthling does by all combined activities.

Any real solution to the global warming problem must address the American lifestyle, which (of course) has a political constituency and momentum. Any alleged solution that does not address American waste and consumption habits will turn out to be illusory, because new sources will operate in parallel with existing sources, rather than replacing existing sources.

So its OK for the french to fuck the planet by burning coal, so long as the americans are also doing it?

You haven't really got the hang of this 'climate change' thing, have you?

...you're going to stop posting drivel about nuclear power in other countries and stick to US greenhouse gas emissions? It would certainly be welcome.

:boring:

But we never hear Americans - especially anti-nuclear Americans - demonstrate against coal. Instead what we get is pro-carbon dioxide Americans praising French people who demand more carbon dioxide, with the loin cloth that it is "temporary."

Coal, in any language, is known to be the worst fuel there is at all times.

www.externe.info

It is unsurprising that the anti-nuclear constituency is as dopey in France as it is in the United States. Of course, in France this silly mysticism has had zero effect and France has one of the highest carbon efficiencies in the world:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1gco2.xls

Read it and weep. France = 0.3 MT of carbon per 1000 US dollars, US = 0.56 MT of carbon per 1000 US dollars. (All dollars = 2000 dollars). Now why is that? Oh yeah, France produces almost all of it's electricity by nuclear means. The US, on the other hand produces almost all of its electrical energy by coal.

The carbon efficiency of France is about 1/2 that of the United States, but apparently there are dumb people in France agitating to make France as irresponsible as the United States. Apparently there are people in the US cheering for this step backwards and this at a time of global catastrophe.

There's no shortage of issues. Organize around funding acid mine runoff remediation or around phasing out the power plants grandfathered by the Clean Air Act thirty five years ago or around stopping mountaintop removal.

It's the only alternative.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/10859/newsDate/18-May-2001/story.htm
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=greenpeace+coal&btnG=Search

Ya hear what ya wanna hear

Obviously a huge priority for them. :eyes:

Oh, but wait! 25 protesters (count 'em!) protested at CLP about coal use just the other week.

Wow.

Out of 2,800,000 members, a massive 25 manage to protest coal.

Well, ain't that fucking wonderful.